Remind me again: Why isn’t Bobby Jindal at the top of Romney’s VP shortlist?

posted at 8:49 pm on August 9, 2012 by Allahpundit

Obligatory caveat: Maybe he is. No one knows except for Romney’s inner circle. But all of the rumors lately have to do with Portman, Pawlenty, and Ryan, with Rubio and Christie unlikely dark horse possibilities. Jindal’s name seems to have disappeared — even though he’s probably the one guy out there more than any other who would satisfy virtually everyone in the Republican galaxy. As Matt Lewis put it:

T-Paw is “meh,” Portman is a Bush guy, Ryan is an invitation to Mediscaring — but what’s Jindal’s big liability? He’s smart as a whip, respected by grassroots conservatives and righty intellectuals, has had plenty of executive experience, brings youth and racial/geographic diversity to the ticket, and on and on and on. The only arguments against him are that he endorsed Perry in the primary, gave a flat response to the State of the Union a few years ago, and once wrote about an exorcism he witnessed decades ago. So what? It wouldn’t be that hard to spin the Perry endorsement: “It was a tough call between him and Mitt, whom I’ve always admired, but my personal friendship with Rick forced my hand. Now, however, I’m committed to helping Gov. Romney lead America back to prosperity.” Case closed. No one’s going to care about the SOTU response — if you want a guy who gives a good speech but can’t govern, there’s already an app for that — and the exorcism thing is so old, petty, and arcane that it’s just not going to get traction realistically. Something like that only hurts a candidate if it jibes somehow with his public persona, seeming to reveal some fundamental quirk in his character. This doesn’t do that. Jindal’s image is that of a consummate wonk, a technocrat blessed with unusual brain power and an enviable grasp of policy. He’s simply not going to be easily demagogued as a wild-eyed religious radical, which of course would be the point of those attacks — although no doubt liberals will try anyway. (In a way, it’d be fitting if this dumb, petty campaign came down to an argument over exorcisms.) Worst-case scenario: Jindal’s forced to answer a few questions about it and gets to gently remind the media that we all do strange things sometimes during youth. Some of us witness an exorcism, others do cocaine. Bygones, etc.

I’m on the verge of talking myself into thinking that he should be the choice, but I’ll hold off on that if only because Portman could at least help deliver a crucial swing state. I’m not sure what Pawlenty, Ryan, or Jindal would deliver, despite their respective strengths. Here’s video of the man himself from the Red State Gathering held recently. Exit question: Why shouldn’t he be the pick? I’m sincerely interested in counterarguments.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

God didn’t make everything by himself.
faraway on August 9, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Yep according to Barack Obama he had help from the government.

melle1228 on August 9, 2012 at 11:44 PM

I’m confused. I thought Obama was God. Or is it just him and some of his supporters who think he is “the chosen One.”

Elisa on August 10, 2012 at 8:50 AM

I’m hoping that the reason we aren’t hearing alot about Jindal from Romney sources is precisely because he is at the top of the list.

The surprise factor when a VP is announced plays big in publicity. Like with Sarah. She was only mentioned in passing.

Elisa on August 10, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Neither, it is a tired, trifling argument. That is all. I am not the least bit threatened by such drivel.

CycloneCDB on August 10, 2012 at 8:48 AM

You find Constitutional matters to be drivel? Obviously it bothers you to the extent that you want someone else to take action over it instead of taking action for yourself, such as ignoring the posts.

Have you ever asked yourself what if you’re wrong? And why did you ignore my question about being specific? You did ask a question regarding the topic that you find to be tired and drivel.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Jindal is BY FAR the best candidate for VP.

Actually he would be a better President and Presidential candidate than Romney (or most of the other Presidential candidates we had this year.)

He is known for giving great speeches without a script. He is brilliant. One bad TV speech years ago is irrelevant.

In fact, it lowers expectations, so that when Jindal gives interviews and speeches, those who don’t already know how great he is, will be wowed.

Love Paul Ryan too. He is my second pick. But we need Ryan and his leadership capabilities in Congress. There would be no one with the intelligence and guts and drive to push through the legislation we need during these critical years of undoing some of the mess we have.

Plus, Jindal is tested longer and has the executive experience. And a remarkably successful executive tenure at that.

Elisa on August 10, 2012 at 8:57 AM

He sounded like a quantum physics teacher lecturing.

inthemiddle on August 9, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Far better to blather like a complete imbecile which Biden does every day of the week. If you’re going to troll here, could you at least try to be entertaining?

eyedoc on August 10, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Emerich de Vattel, Law of Nations (1758)

§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.

. . . .

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 7:45 AM

We aren’t governed by the Law of Nations. We are governed by the Constitution and subsequent court decisions that interpret it.

There has never been a definitive ruling on what constitutes “natural born citizen” either way.

Jindal (according to any court decisions up to today) is elegible to be President.

Lynch VS Clarke makes that clear.

Elisa on August 10, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Jindal and other VP pick potentials (including Ryan) is probably silently sending signals to the mittens camp that say ‘Please don’t pick me!’….because playing second fiddle to an unlikeable loser (i.e., mittens) isn’t exactly the best course of action for anyone looking for a long-term political future!

Pragmatic on August 10, 2012 at 9:03 AM

We aren’t governed by the Law of Nations. We are governed by the Constitution and subsequent court decisions that interpret it.

There has never been a definitive ruling on what constitutes “natural born citizen” either way.

Jindal (according to any court decisions up to today) is elegible to be President.

Lynch VS Clarke makes that clear.

Elisa on August 10, 2012 at 9:01 AM

No one has said we are governed by the Law of Nations. It was an influence on the Framers. Where do you think they got it? Clearly it meant something to them since they rejected Hamilton’s condition of just being a citizen. They purposefully specified natural born.

And no, we are not governed by subsequent court decisions that interpret it. That was never the intent of the Framers.

And no, no court decision has made it clear; the Lynch ruling is incorrect.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Lynch VS Clarke 1944 (this ruling has also been cited as precedent in subsequent rulings)

The Constitution of the United States, like those of all the original states (and in fact, of all the new states now forming the Union, with the exception of Louisiana,) presupposed the existence and the authority of the common law. The principles of that law were the basis of our institutions.”

“The only standard which then existed [when the Constitution was written], of a natural born citizen, was the rule of common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.”

According to the common law of England and the United States (at the time of the constitution and today), the law on which the Constitution is based and a law that is “presupposed” in all of the sentences in the Constitution, Jindal is eligible to be President.

Elisa on August 10, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Someone here said Romney should announce his VP pick during the democrat convention. I actually LOVE that idea! Announce it the night barack is giving his speech. It robs them of a name to demonize at their convention, and makes barack’s boyfriends and girlfriends in the media have to choose between him and some…actual news. Ha!

Rational Thought on August 10, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Love Paul Ryan too. He is my second pick. But we need Ryan and his leadership capabilities in Congress. There would be no one with the intelligence and guts and drive to push through the legislation we need during these critical years of undoing some of the mess we have.

Elisa on August 10, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Ryan. Who voted for TARP, the auto bailouts, raising the debt ceiling, increasing spending, confiscating CEO bonuses, Medicare Part D, introduced SCHIP expansion legislation, and voted to allow presidential appointments without Senate confirmation.

That’s your idea of leadership???

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 9:12 AM

. . .Clearly it meant something to them since they rejected Hamilton’s condition of just being a citizen. They purposefully specified natural born. . . .

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 9:10 AM

There is nothing written at the time or since that describes why the word “natural born” was added or what those people specifically meant the words “natural born” to mean.

For all you (or any of us)know, it was inserted by a lower level scribe or was a mistake. Or those who inserted it or signed their names to it didn’t mean what you think they meant.

NOTHING formal (or informal by our founders specific to this insertion) has been written about it EITHER WAY and there has been no definitive decision on this EITHER WAY.

Again, according to any rulings since the Constitution that interpret this clause, Jindal is eligible.

It is not up to you to decide if Lynch vs Clarke is “incorrect.” No US court has since said it is “incorrect.” In fact,it has been cited as precedent in subsequent rulings.

Elisa on August 10, 2012 at 9:17 AM

“The only standard which then existed [when the Constitution was written], of a natural born citizen, was the rule of common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.”

According to the common law of England and the United States (at the time of the constitution and today), the law on which the Constitution is based and a law that is “presupposed” in all of the sentences in the Constitution, Jindal is eligible to be President.

Elisa on August 10, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Two errors here. First, Vattel writes of natural born citizenship in 1758. Clearly, there is another standard. So it is a falsehood to say the rule of common law is the only standard that existed, especially since Vattel was an influence on the Framers.

Second, the Constitution is not based on the common law of England. It was changed and transformed to suit their desires, which is obvious in its reading. Why revolt if they were just going to follow England’s common law? It’s ludicrous.

And here are quotes from various Founders stating so.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 9:19 AM

There is nothing written at the time or since that describes why the word “natural born” was added or what those people specifically meant the words “natural born” to mean.

Elisa on August 10, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Except there is.

John Jay, in a letter to George Washington, Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention, 1787:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 9:22 AM

It is not up to you to decide if Lynch vs Clarke is “incorrect.” No US court has since said it is “incorrect.” In fact,it has been cited as precedent in subsequent rulings.

Elisa on August 10, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Actually, it is. The people are the arbiters of what is Constitutional or not, not the courts.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 9:22 AM

First, the intent was to stop “Foreigners” from getting into the highest administration of the Federal Government. Clearly, someone born and raised in this country is not considered a “foreigner” any more than I would be considered a foreigner because my father came here at the age of 19. So Jindal does not go against the intent of the law.

It is irrelevant to the intent whether or not the child is born before or after the parent becomes a citizen. The child is not a “foreigner,” which was the intent of the law. And a foreigner wishing to subvert this country could still do so through his child the year after becoming a naturalized citizen, as easily as he could the year before becoming a citizen.

The question is what was the intent of adding the words “natural born” citizen.

Those were the words that Jay used to stop “foreigners.”

The original draft simply said “citizen of the United States.” The insertion (without any comment or record of the debate at the time or since in history) said, “natural born citizen.”

But Hamilton had the same intent as Jay to stop “foreigners” and he proposed a change that said “now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

So the question is: did “natural born citizen” mean something different to those who inserted it or signed the document than “born a Citizen of the United States?”

You nor I (nor anyone here) know the answer to that question.

Because there is no written comment or record of the debate at the time or anything written since about their intentions at the time to use that specific phrase. Nothing in written history. For all any of us know, to them, it meant the same as being born and raised here. That is didn’t matter to them if the child was born before or after being a naturalized a citizen.

And no US court ruling since the time of our founding has formally decided that “natural born citizen” would preclude someone born here of foreign parents.

The only actual rulings we have (including Lynch vs Clarke which also served as precedent for subsequent ruligns) say that Jindal is a “natural born citizen” and eligible.

Until we have any formal rulings by US courts or by act of Congress that say otherwise, Jindal is eligible.

Elisa on August 10, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Elisa on August 10, 2012 at 9:53 AM

There are your claims, and there are the facts, and you are confusing your opinion for fact.

You stated, “There is nothing written at the time or since that describes why the word “natural born” was added or what those people specifically meant the words “natural born” to mean.”

Obviously, there is, and I’ve cited both Jay and Vattel, among others. You can keep clinging to Lynch all you wish, but it’s incorrect. I’m sorry that you think the courts – the government, and not the people, determine what is Constitutional. This is not how the Framers set it up.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 9:57 AM

T-Paw is “meh,” Portman is a Bush guy, Ryan is an invitation to Mediscaring — but what’s Jindal’s big liability?

It’s the Southern accent. I wish I were kidding, but I guarantee you that’s it.

SouthernGent on August 10, 2012 at 9:57 AM

It is not up to you to decide if Lynch vs Clarke is “incorrect.” No US court has since said it is “incorrect.” In fact,it has been cited as precedent in subsequent rulings.

Elisa on August 10, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Actually, it is. The people are the arbiters of what is Constitutional or not, not the courts.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 9:28 AM

OK. I’m done here.

We will have to agree to disagree as to whether or not your opinion alone makes law. “The people” is not you alone. Or me alone. “the people” are represented by our elected officials and their will is put in action by the laws those officials pass and by the interpretation of those laws by the courts they appoint.

It is not up to you. It is up to Congress and the courts.

And any ruling on this sentence since the time of the Constitution says Jindal is eligible.

Have a good day, Dante and everyone.

Elisa on August 10, 2012 at 9:57 AM

We will have to agree to disagree as to whether or not your opinion alone makes law. “The people” is not you alone. Or me alone. “the people” are represented by our elected officials and their will is put in action by the laws those officials pass and by the interpretation of those laws by the courts they appoint.

It is not up to you. It is up to Congress and the courts.

Elisa on August 10, 2012 at 9:57 AM

This is a gross misunderstanding, although a common one.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Additionally, I never claimed my opinion makes law. That’s a straw man. Laws, however, must be in pursuance of the Constitution. Those that aren’t are null and void, and it is the people who decide that and the people who have the right of nullification.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Whoever it is will be smarter and give more to charity than Joe Biden.

Of course, most adults meet that requirement.

@Redneck4Romney

Wagthatdog on August 10, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Actually, it is. The people are the arbiters of what is Constitutional or not, not the courts.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 9:28 AM

200 + years of U.S. Legal history would disagree with you. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), decided that issue long ago. Just because you don’t believe something, doesn’t lessen its power. Stop beieving in gravity as much as you want, you still aren’t going to fly on your own.

It is amazing that birthers are still a thing. Vattel’s book’s interpretation of French law is not helpful in understanding what is meant by the phrase “natural born Citizen”. First, the book was only available in French at time of constitution drafting, so phrase “natural born Citizen” was not present. Second, the French edition available, didn’t even include the French version of that phrase “‎naturelle citoyen né”, so even if all the founders were fluent in French, the french phrase for natural born citizen wasnt in the book they read. So how could they decide to borrow a phrase that didn’t even exist in French book?

Third, “natural born Subject” was a term of art commonly used in English courts(i.e. English Common Law) at time of Constitution drafting. It meant “born within a country”. Up until independence, “Common Law” was the law applicable in U.S. Even after independence, most states still looked to prior English common law to define and interpret words, terms of art, and phrases common at the time. The words and terms of art used at the time can be interpreted by what they meant under Common Law at the time of founding. Therefore, “natural born Subject” was a commonly understood legal phrase. Since “subject” was no longer applicable in the new Republic, that noun was changed to “Citizen”. That change does not effect that a person becomes naturally born, by being born within the country.

Natural Born Citizen means having the quality of citizenship since birth. Has nothing to do with parentage. To make it easier: If you describe someone as being a “natural born ball-player” or a “natural born lolipop sucker”, are you: a) indicating that that person has had that quality since birht; or b) indicating that both of the subject’s parents has had that quality? I’ve heard many people say that Pete Rose was a natural born baseball player, but not once has someone backed that statment up by indicating his Mom and Dad were great ballplayers.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on August 10, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 9:57 AM

but you can’t show me anything from written history at the time or since that shows if Jay’s phrase of “natural born” had a different intent to them than Hamilton’s phrase of “born a citizen” which he wanted to add.

Both men had the intent to top “foreigners.” The original draft only mentioned being a “citizen.”

No one knows if Jay’s phrasing had a different intent than Hamilton’s phrasing. No one knows the specific intent of the final insertion because there is NO WRITTEN RECORD. lol

We only know both men wanted to stop “foreigner.” That is the only intent we know from written record. We do not know if those 2 men and the signers cared if the parents were naturalized before or after the birth, as long as the child was born here.

Elisa on August 10, 2012 at 10:07 AM

200 + years of U.S. Legal history would disagree with you.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on August 10, 2012 at 10:05 AM

That’s funny. Government ruling that government has power. Yep, case closed.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 10:09 AM

New_Jersey_Buckeye on August 10, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Wow. Excellent. Didn’t know all of that.

Thank you, my fellow New Jersey-an.

Elisa on August 10, 2012 at 10:11 AM

I have no counter argument. Jindal would be great. As for Portman, would make a fine Chief of Staff.

Buy Danish on August 10, 2012 at 10:19 AM

My only concern, because I like Jindal, alot, is his being a Rhodes scholar, financed by the Rothschilds. Crazy talk, I hope. But we have been greatly infiltrated by foreign influences that desire our country’s downfall, and the end of our Heaven-inspired Constitution and the freedom that it spells out clearly. Bill Clinton and Elena Kagan are also Rhodes Scholars. I think we need to learn to look more carefully than we have in the past.

Peggy Snow Cahill on August 10, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Wow. Excellent. Didn’t know all of that.

Thank you, my fellow New Jersey-an.

Elisa on August 10, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Much of his post was addressed in my links above.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Love Jindal! Can’t wait to vote for him in 2016 when he’s at the top of the ticket. Provided we’re not a third world dictatorship by then.

NebCon on August 10, 2012 at 10:22 AM

T-Paw is “meh,” Portman is a Bush guy, Ryan is an invitation to Mediscaring — but what’s Jindal’s big liability?

What’s his big liability? How about not being a liberal. The media and left are going to take the gloves off no matter who the VEEP pick is. I say Romney just choose whoever he thinks will be the best VP.

I really think he will do this. Romney is from the business world, where you select the candidate based on how you think they will perform.

weaselyone on August 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM

I’m confused. I thought Obama was God. Or is it just him and some of his supporters who think he is “the chosen One.”

Elisa on August 10, 2012 at 8:50 AM

You’re looking at the wrong end of the universe.

landlines on August 10, 2012 at 11:03 AM

I live in Louisiana and have been a long time Jindal supporter, but his stint as governor has not quite lived up to the expectations that I had for him. Don’t get me wrong — I’m a fan, and recognize that Jindal would be orders of magnitude of an improvement over Scrappy Joe Biden the pompous plagiarizer (as well as O), but I think I’d rather see Rubio (or Christie) picked, with Ryan left in place to do some of the heavy lifting required to actually fix our problems.

Bob L on August 10, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Against slow Joe? Really? Jindal could come in 3 sheets to the wind and sound more coherent on policy.

hillsoftx on August 9, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Ok that really made me laugh out loud – only because it’s true. “C’mon man – Barack is clean!” If we’re lucky, maybe Biden will even make a remark about how he should be working at a 7-11.

The Count on August 9, 2012 at 9:04 PM

These two comments are hilarious!

Vince on August 10, 2012 at 11:20 AM

I say Romney just choose whoever he thinks will be the best VP.

I really think he will do this. Romney is from the business world, where you select the candidate based on how you think they will perform.

weaselyone on August 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM

If this is so, then he will pick Ryan.

Vince on August 10, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Remind you again???? Are you a total idiot? For the last time, jindal and rubio are not NBC, got it!

Mr. Sun on August 9, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Apparently you are unaware that BOTH Baton Rouge, LA AND Miami, FL are within the United States of America. Both Jindal and Rubio are fully qualified to be President of the United States.

On the other hand, it is true that neither is employed by the network you mentioned.

landlines on August 10, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Except there is.

John Jay, in a letter to George Washington, Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention, 1787:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 9:22 AM

But what would “natural born citizen” mean in 1787? The Framers clearly stated that the President must be at least 35 years old, meaning that if the Constitution was ratified immediately, the first President would have been born prior to 1752, and anyone born in the American colonies ratifying the Constitution at that time would have been either a Native American or a British subject.

But the Framers had recently fought a war against the king of England, and many of the Native American tribes were hostile to the Framers. The Framers wanted a Commander in Chief who would not be loyal to England or the Native Americans, and therefore not born in England, but all Presidents born in what would become the United States of America prior to the signing of the Constitution had parents who were British subjects. The Framers could not impose conditions on the President (having parents who were American citizens) which no one could fulfill at the time the Constitution was written.

Both Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio are American citizens, and were born in the United States of America, and can be considered “natural born citizens”, regardless of the origin of their parents.

Steve Z on August 10, 2012 at 11:29 AM

If this is so, then he will pick Ryan.

Vince on August 10, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Thank you for proposing your pick for most qualified. I am sick of everyone pushing their pick based on race, politics, gender, or geographics.

My pick for most qualified would be John Thune.

weaselyone on August 10, 2012 at 11:30 AM

The big question is: Who’s going to play Jindal on SNL?

Scrappy on August 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Allahpundit, “if you want a guy who gives a good speech but can’t govern, there’s already an app for that,” is one of the most brilliantly crafted bits of prose I have ever seen. You sir have a real gift for writing.

Romney should pick the best person to be President. Jindal is excellent by that standard. He is vulnerable of his creationist views though. Don’t ignore how the bigoted media will play this.

Pythagoras on August 10, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Remind me again: Why isn’t Bobby Jindal at the top of Romney’s VP shortlist?

‘Cuz he doesn’t want the gig. He’s made that crystal clear.

EconomicNeocon on August 10, 2012 at 12:10 PM

You find Constitutional matters to be drivel?

No – I find your manufactured Constitutional crisis to be drivel. ACTUAL Constitutional matters are important. You’re confusing the two.

Obviously it bothers you to the extent that you want someone else to take action over it instead of taking action for yourself, such as ignoring the posts.

I want them deleted because it takes an extra mouse click to get past your drivel. Your drivel is worth that little that the extra effort is becoming a nuisance.

Have you ever asked yourself what if you’re wrong? And why did you ignore my question about being specific? You did ask a question regarding the topic that you find to be tired and drivel.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Yes – a question you have yet to answer. What is it? There are naturalized citizens and natural born citizens. What falls in between there? Get off the soap box and think for a minute and get back to me.

CycloneCDB on August 10, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Romney’s in the same boat McCain was in 4 years ago. The only difference is that McCain had NO chance of beating the Media Messiah from Oprah land…or even getting past being labeled as GWB III. Romney does have a shot, but he will need to attract more swing voters than he is capable of – on his own. Like McCain.

And that’s why McCain needed a Palin. Hail Mary pass for sure, but it at least kept it close. Romney’s focus for his choice HAS to be on more populist appeal than “technocrat- wonk” abilities. (Trust me, main street America is not interested in, or find it appealing, voting for a “technocrat”)

By the way, forget worrying about what the media will do or say about the VP pick. There job will be to personally destroy any choice Super Mitt makes. The die has been cast with Sarah.

My money is on McDonnell though. A woman VP is still my preference.

FlaMurph on August 10, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Whatever excites the Palin fans should be avoided at all costs, that’s why.

How many terms do you want to just hand to Obama anyway? Stop working for the guy already.

Moesart on August 10, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Why not Jindal?

He wants to destroy the public school system in his state, and he would do it nationally.

So you have Murdering Mitt (the evil, greedy, want-to-fire-you Capitalist 1%er scum) and then you have that tanned Cajun school hating hick.

What a combination.

JEB2016

PappyD61 on August 10, 2012 at 12:58 PM

The Framers were motivated by a necessity for undivided loyalty and allegiance to the United States. They intended that the pool of available natural born citizens (born in the US to US citizen parents) would be large enough that risking someone born in the US to either one or non US citizen parents was not only not necessary, but not justified for the position of President, CIC, or VP. The framers were risk managers, and intended that enlarging the available pool of potential candidates beyond those born in the US to US citizen parents was unwise and not justified. This is why they chose the natural born citizen definition understood at the time to be born in the US two US citizen parents. Ample evidence, such as Vattel’s LON, provides proof of the derivation of the meaning of natural born citizen.

Tripwhipper on August 10, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Yes – a question you have yet to answer. What is it? There are naturalized citizens and natural born citizens. What falls in between there? Get off the soap box and think for a minute and get back to me.

CycloneCDB on August 10, 2012 at 12:19 PM

You asked: ” If natural born means born of a citizen, what do you classify someone born a citizen but to immigrant parents as?”

I asked you to be specific. Are the parents immigrants or naturalized immigrants? It’s a critical question that you didn’t answer.

Children born of naturalized immigratns are natural born citizens. Children born of immigrants who have not become naturalized are not natural born citizens. Some will argue that anyone born here is a native born citizen, regardless of citizenship status of the parents. Natural born is dependent on citizenship status of the parents.

So, immigrants can become naturalized and have a child. So a child born of immigrants could be a natural born citizen. This is why I asked you to be specific.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 1:23 PM

So, immigrants can become naturalized and have a child. So a child born of immigrants could be a natural born citizen. This is why I asked you to be specific.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Mr. Twisty

CycloneCDB on August 10, 2012 at 1:25 PM

But what would “natural born citizen” mean in 1787? The Framers clearly stated that the President must be at least 35 years old, meaning that if the Constitution was ratified immediately, the first President would have been born prior to 1752, and anyone born in the American colonies ratifying the Constitution at that time would have been either a Native American or a British subject

Emerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations (1758) has already been cited as an influence on the Framers.

But the Framers had recently fought a war against the king of England, and many of the Native American tribes were hostile to the Framers. The Framers wanted a Commander in Chief who would not be loyal to England or the Native Americans, and therefore not born in England, but all Presidents born in what would become the United States of America prior to the signing of the Constitution had parents who were British subjects. The Framers could not impose conditions on the President (having parents who were American citizens) which no one could fulfill at the time the Constitution was written.

I suggest you read the Constitution.

Article II, Section 1:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Both Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio are American citizens, and were born in the United States of America, and can be considered “natural born citizens”, regardless of the origin of their parents.

Steve Z on August 10, 2012 at 11:29 AM

No one is claiming that Jindal or Rubio are not American citizens. They can be considered native born, but since their parents were not American citizens at the time of Bobby and Marco’s birth, then they are not natural born citizens.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Mr. Twisty

CycloneCDB on August 10, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Why do you keep avoiding my question? There isn’t anything twisty about it.

Immigrants can become naturalized. That doesn’t mean they are no longer immigrants.

You do know that, don’t you?

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 1:29 PM

I’m no Wikipedia expert, but I’ve noticed that a lot of links were added to Bobby Jindal’s page on the 7th. Just sayin’…

teffertoes on August 10, 2012 at 1:34 PM

You asked: ” If natural born means born of a citizen, what do you classify someone born a citizen but to immigrant parents as?”

I asked you to be specific. Are the parents immigrants or naturalized immigrants? It’s a critical question that you didn’t answer.

Children born of naturalized immigratns are natural born citizens. Children born of immigrants who have not become naturalized are not natural born citizens. Some will argue that anyone born here is a native born citizen, regardless of citizenship status of the parents. Natural born is dependent on citizenship status of the parents.

So, immigrants can become naturalized and have a child. So a child born of immigrants could be a natural born citizen. This is why I asked you to be specific.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Your logic falls flat at the point when one examines Jindal’s folks. If they were here on a visa when he was born, had little unnatrual Bobby, got naturalized, and then had a little brother for Bobby – you’d say Bobby is not qualified to be POTUS, but little brother is. Same parents. Same upbringing. Born in the same hospital. In the same city. In the same state.

It defies common sense.

This is why I say they should just remove the “natural borner” posts. You haven’t spent as much time thinking about it as you have spent talking about it. I’d suggest you do more of the former than the latter. Instead, you twist yourself into knots trying to find some way to disqualify a son of immigrants in order to add one more layer of evidence against a crappy president Obama.

I cannot believe I have allowed such drivel to occupy so much of my day today.

So – Allah – I pose the question again, can we get Humpbot to do some culling of the comments where any time the words “natural born” are posted, just send them to the trash?

CycloneCDB on August 10, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Why do you keep avoiding my question? There isn’t anything twisty about it.

Immigrants can become naturalized. That doesn’t mean they are no longer immigrants.

You do know that, don’t you?

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 1:29 PM

You Paulnuts are all missing a few synapses.

CycloneCDB on August 10, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Your logic falls flat at the point when one examines Jindal’s folks. If they were here on a visa when he was born, had little unnatrual Bobby, got naturalized, and then had a little brother for Bobby – you’d say Bobby is not qualified to be POTUS, but little brother is. Same parents. Same upbringing. Born in the same hospital. In the same city. In the same state.

CycloneCDB on August 10, 2012 at 1:34 PM

That’s correct, but that is not a case of logic falling flat. It’s a case of a standard being applied.

You Paulnuts are all missing a few synapses.

CycloneCDB on August 10, 2012 at 1:36 PM

And here we get to the core of the matter.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 1:40 PM

That’s correct, but that is not a case of logic falling flat. It’s a case of a standard being applied.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Yes – the timing of citizenship classes should be a soul determinant of presidential qulaifications and Dante’s Degree of Citizenship. You’re a loon.

CycloneCDB on August 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Naw. It can’t be Jindal. He’s not a boring white guy.

Actually, the biggest argument against it being Jindal is that Louisiana really needs him right now.

tom on August 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Against slow Joe? Really? Jindal could come in 3 sheets to the wind and sound more coherent on policy.

hillsoftx on August 9, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Ok that really made me laugh out loud – only because it’s true. “C’mon man – Barack is clean!” If we’re lucky, maybe Biden will even make a remark about how he should be working at a 7-11.

The Count on August 9, 2012 at 9:04 PM

These two comments are hilarious!

Vince on August 10, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Never underestimate Joe Biden. No one alive can make up facts as fast as he can.

tom on August 10, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Yes – the timing of citizenship classes should be a soul determinant of presidential qulaifications and Dante’s Degree of Citizenship. You’re a loon.

CycloneCDB on August 10, 2012 at 1:48 PM

If you read the Constitution, you would realize that citizenship status is not the sole determinant (sole meaning one and only, of course. There can’t be multiple sole determinants).

But hey, you’ve got namecalling going for you, which clearly means you have a solid grasp of the issue.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Do you think it is because Bobby Jindall is not very attractive? I don’t know him, but he has a face for radio. I know that is mean, but I think he looks like Bobby Kennedy and he and his family.

Fleuries on August 10, 2012 at 2:18 PM

It is amazing that birthers are still a thing. Vattel’s book’s interpretation of French law is not helpful in understanding what is meant by the phrase “natural born Citizen”. First, the book was only available in French at time of constitution drafting, so phrase “natural born Citizen” was not present. Second, the French edition available, didn’t even include the French version of that phrase “‎naturelle citoyen né”, so even if all the founders were fluent in French, the french phrase for natural born citizen wasnt in the book they read. So how could they decide to borrow a phrase that didn’t even exist in French book?

New_Jersey_Buckeye

This is a gamechanger. I have heard people speak about native born vs. natural born and stuff like that. If this is true, all that talk will turn out to be BS, because this would mean that the only place from where the phrase “natural born” could have come is the English common law, and according to common law any person born in the country, even to alien parents, is a “natural born subject” as long as the parents are not enemy combatants.

So yeah, Jindal and Rubio are very much eligible.

CoolAir on August 10, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Why not Jindal?

He wants to destroy the public school system in his state, and he would do it nationally.

So you have Murdering Mitt (the evil, greedy, want-to-fire-you Capitalist 1%er scum) and then you have that tanned Cajun school hating hick.

What a combination.

JEB2016

PappyD61 on August 10, 2012 at 12:58 PM

The federal government does not (and should not) have the power to destroy the local school systems. Also, since LA has had the worst schools in the nation for a long time, how can you be confident that his change to the system the Dems put in is a step in the wrong direction?

Pythagoras on August 10, 2012 at 2:30 PM

This is a gamechanger. I have heard people speak about native born vs. natural born and stuff like that. If this is true, all that talk will turn out to be BS, because this would mean that the only place from where the phrase “natural born” could have come is the English common law, and according to common law any person born in the country, even to alien parents, is a “natural born subject” as long as the parents are not enemy combatants.

So yeah, Jindal and Rubio are very much eligible.

CoolAir on August 10, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Hardly. That Vattel’s work was an influence on the Framers is undeniable. While “natural born citizen” might not be a literal phrase in the passage, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t read or interpreted that way. This is a flimsy straw man.

Here is the sentence: Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

Clearly “citoyen” is implied in Les Naturels, just like the word “you” is implied/understood in, “Go start the car.” And here is the crux: citizenship is based on the citizenship of the parents, which is exactly what the passage is presenting.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Why not Jindal?

Any candidate needs sufficient time to establish themselves with the electorate. There will be no time for that now in this election season and Jindal is relatively unknown outside of LA.

Marco Rubio is the better choice. He is a superior speaker, has established himself well in a must-win state, FL, has solid conservative credentials, has a higher national profile than Jindal, and he’s of hispanic origin which (unfortunately) is a factor that must be considered.

All around, that makes Rubio the superior choice. FWIW.

Mike from NC on August 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM

If yuo follow the full run of court discussions (and Happersett does NOT give us any answer whatsoever), one sees a lot of sloppy language that ultimately boils down to this – if you were born here, you’re a natural born citizen. Both Jindal and Rubio qualify.

And we have something of a precedent for this occupying the White House now, so the other side really can’t quibble much over it.

krome on August 10, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Here is the sentence: Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.

Clearly “citoyen” is implied in Les Naturels, just like the word “you” is implied/understood in, “Go start the car.” And here is the crux: citizenship is based on the citizenship of the parents, which is exactly what the passage is presenting.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 2:41 PM

In interpreting the 3 word phrase “natural born Citizen”, you want 2 of the 3 words to be inserted by the reader and the noun “naturels” to be transformed from a noun into an adjective/adverb? Wow. That is some chutzpah.

Your case is that the Founders borrowed the phrase “natural born Citizen” from a swiss philospher no one has heard of. When confronted with the fact that the book cited to was not translated into English until some decades after the drafting of the constitution, you indicate that the Founders borrowed this phrase while it was in another language. When confronted with the evidence that the French version of that phrase is not present in the text cited, you request that most of the phrase be “read” or inferred into the French sentance.

Here are the two possible sources of the phrase “natural born Citizen”: a) Modify English Common Law phrase “natural born Subject” that had been used for approximately 200 years prior to U.S. Independence throughout U.K and her colonies (most constitution drafters were colonial lawyers); or b) minor swiss philospher who didn’t write in english or use any french combination of the phrase “natural born Citizen”.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on August 10, 2012 at 3:15 PM

T-Paw is “meh,” Portman is a Bush guy, Ryan is an invitation to Mediscaring

Paw has to be redefined for the Tea Party. A Bush choice is deadly to the Tea Party. Ryan doesnt scare the Tea Party

Geo Bush drew a line around a part of America when he called Minutemen ‘vigilantes’ and called illegal immigrants ‘good people’. This was the same as Rahm telling Chicken man he was not welcome in his town. People do not forget this. This was personal and the finger pointed at them, unlike marital problems, money problems, or gaffes.

While Ryan is a wonk, he comes across as kindly. He would have to ramp down the wonk talk and ramp up the Romney talk. He is capable of changing gears. Dont want to get gushy but Ryan has a boyish charm – he does not come across as one of the good ole boys

Jindal has the advantage of a warm, engaging, all American optimism. His ethnic background makes this endearing, because Americans dearly love the American tale of immigrant families assimilating with joy. He has grown in the job

entagor on August 10, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Here are the two possible sources of the phrase “natural born Citizen”: a) Modify English Common Law phrase “natural born Subject” that had been used for approximately 200 years prior to U.S. Independence throughout U.K and her colonies (most constitution drafters were colonial lawyers); or b) minor swiss philospher who didn’t write in english or use any french combination of the phrase “natural born Citizen”.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on August 10, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Well, let’s see. A doesn’t fit his meme, so it must be B.

CycloneCDB on August 10, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Your case is that the Founders borrowed the phrase “natural born Citizen” from a swiss philospher no one has heard of.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on August 10, 2012 at 3:15 PM

But the Founders had heard of him, your straw man aside.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 3:55 PM

And we have something of a precedent for this occupying the White House now, so the other side really can’t quibble much over it.

krome on August 10, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Unconstitutional actions are not precedents nor justifications for further unconstitutional actions.

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Well… if one believes that the term “natural born citizen” means born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents, that’s why Jindal (and Rubio) should not be selected by Romney. If Jindal or Rubio is chosen, lawsuits will be filed by those who believe the citizenship of the parents is part of the definition.

On the other hand, Obama can be expected not to raise the issue…

Colony14 on August 10, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Those who argue that Lynch v. Clark (1944) settles the issue are forgetting Happensett v. Minor, which dates to 1875.

Colony14 on August 10, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Romney-Kardashian! (Why let Obama have all of the idiot vote?)

or maybe

Romney-McChrystal?

Colony14 on August 10, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Dante – your doing a noble job confronting the skeptics of the Constitution.

What bothers me the most is that while Dante is having a good discussion on the merits of the “Natural Born Citizen” clause, you other so called “Conservatives” are acting like spoiled Democrats trying to minimize and degrade the individual and not the topic.

This isn’t like the fake “Right to Privacy” clause of our Constitution that doesn’t exist. We’re talking about distinctly different words used to qualify an individual for the Presidency versus any other elected office. The word “Citizen” is used for Senators, Judges, Congressmen but pointedly enhanced as “Natural Born Citizen” for the Presidency/VP.

The framers didn’t make a typo – it was purposeful. They weren’t taken to wordsmithing, embellishments, or semantics. The whole document is 6 pages long! Proving the power of the brevity of purposeful words.

So the clause has meaning. Different from regular ‘ol Citizen. What it is – is more than a worthwhile argument, it goes to the basis of how we choose to govern ourselves. So you can’t choose to ignore it, as you can’t choose to ignore any other portion of the document. Strong arguments can be made on both sides, so please stop discounting one portion with a dismissive “Birther” slander. It’s pissing me off to no end that we can’t have a reasoned discussion on our damn Constitution.

rgrovr on August 10, 2012 at 4:23 PM

It bothers me that people don’t look at all of the cases…which leave a fairly clear picture of natural born citizen meaning nothing more than being born here (or elsewhere to two US citizens), and hanging on Happersett, which explicitly says it does NOT answer the question.

Happersett says:
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,‘ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens”.

krome on August 10, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Has any presidential candidate ever lost an election because of a vice presidential debate?

sherrimae on August 10, 2012 at 6:20 PM

“The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.” –Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” –Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

Dante on August 10, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4